But the truth is, our website is only made possible by displaying advertisements to our visitors, ads keep the site running and free. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker for our website.

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Lol, the dwarf sounds like a jilted ex GF! FFS does he have issues. He is obsessed with Sarri like Eden is with Real Madrid. GRRRRRR
Also, Sarri is a Communist? LOLOL
You would think he would ditch the blue teams for RED ONES!

It wouldn't be a complete dissolution, obviously. Of the euro, yes, but not of some sort of continental compact. Something along the the the European Economic Community perhaps. Having lived in the US for a couple of years whilst reading for my MBA, I can assure you we do not want to go down the United States of Europe route. The Ameri an federalist system is approaching an inflection point sometime over the next 20 years or so where it will be in danger of a breakdown spiral.
Their lower house (House of Representaives) is linked to their elections of their Presidents via the Elecroral College. The number of electors is 538, which is arrived at by adding the number of high house (The Senate, 2 per state x 50 states) seats, 100, plus the number of lower house seats, 435, plus 3 for their Capitol, the District of Columbia.
The problem is, they have not truly increased the size of their House of Representatives since 1913, when the population was only 100 million. It is close to 330 million now, with no increase in House size.
This has meant that the largest states are short-changed in number of House members (and thus Electoral College votes for President, which is completely why Trump won from a systemic standpoint) to the point where one Wyoming (smallest state in population) POTUS Electoral vote is worth almost FOUR California Electoral votes.
Not only does this effect their Presidential races, but law making as well, as the small states carry far too much power in the House.
The largest states are almost all Democratic Party-dominated in nature, with the exception of Texas, and, to a lesser extent, Florida. These large states and large cities in general keep growing, yet lose more and more voting power each year. I call it constitutional kettling (after the police action of kettling mob crowds by splitting them up, then pushing them into dead end streets).
Combined with ultra dodgy gerrymandering of House districts, and also horrid voter suppression, it has allowed the RW Republican party to be vastly OVER represented at the Federal and also state levels.
The real nail in the coffin will come in terms of their Senate, fixed at 100 seats, 2 per state, no matter how big or small. Due to population drift and growth, by the early to mid 2030's or so, 30% of the US population will control SEVENTY percent (70 seats) of the Senate. 70% percent of the population will only have 30% (30 seats) of the Senate.
That tiny minority controlling 70 seats is mostly made up of a much more rural, poorer, much more white, conservative, fundie religious, less educated populace (ie it will be far more RW than the vast majority of the nation.)
Again, this will result in incredible overrepresented numbers of RW Republicans. The Senate confirms the third branch of government in the US, their federal courts, most importantly their Supreme Court, which is already skewed to the right, and may end up 8 conservatives, only 1 liberal if Trump is re-elected, or even before, it the old-aged liberals and the one with bad diabetes die in the next 2 years.
Their national union simply cannot absorb these incoming further electoral distortions and remain whole with dramatic changes, but most would take a Constitutional Amendment, which, under their system is insanely hard to do.
There is one that doesnt (and this doesnt NOTHING to sort their Senate issues): raise the size of the House of Representatives from 435 to at least 1001 or more and thus you can much more equally distribute law making and Electoral College voting power. It only takes an Act of Congress, but the small states and especially the Republicans (who have ruthlessly, brilliantly, and often illegally gamed the American governmental system over the last 50 os so years) will viscously fight that increase in House seats.
I leave you with this thought. IF the US House had the same number of constituents per member that the UK House of Commons does, it would 3,250 seats. If it had the same as here in Sweden, it wouldn't have 435 members, it would have over TWELVE THOUSAND.
They are headed for a breakup by 2040 or so, surely by 2050 unless massive changes are made.

You do not need a full blown centralised state apparatus at continental level to prevent wars between genuine democracies. You also certainly do not need nor want a unified currency scheme (the euro) for 19 nation states, yet each with their own fiscal policy at domestic levels.
Germany has been the huge winner in the euro sweepstakes, as it is a massive exporting nation, thus needs a cheap currency to keep acceptable profit margins. With all the turmoil, if Germany still had the Deutsche Mark, it would be blown sky high on the FOREX markets (say 3 quid or more to mark) and Germany's export profits would be eviscerated.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have the PIGS nations who have been forced into suicidal bouts of austerity regimes, just to keep their books in balance under the ever-watching eye of the ECB (in Germany! Of course).
The EU and the euro were always a contrivance of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks, with multinational predatory capitalism in a synchopated goose-step.
Their are plenty of other confederations of our continent that can be implemented without the loss of sovereignty, fiscal-monetary linkage breakdown, and the socio-cultural upheaval that is tearing peoples apart at a domestic poltical level.

You obviously did not draw much from my own statement about me being anti EU FROM THE LEFT
I took offence at your use of the slur 'libtard'. It is close-minded and reactionary, and very much erroneously implies some sort of monolithic group think amongst people on the left side of the political spectrum.
Both so-called LW AND so-called RW factions were split on Brexit. Some of Remainers supported that stance for nefarious reasons, as did some of the Leave side. To say that there was absolutely zero amounts of xenophobia and racism driving SOME of Leave vote is just patently untrue, just as it would also be false to say that all of the Remainers came to the table with completely pure-as-the-driven-snow hands. The Blairites (my ideological foes within our Labour Party) most definitely do not have good intentions.

The CB's 22yo and under I do rate over him (and I do not think AC has been horrid at all, yes he has had some mistakes, but not the amount some say)
bold are my favourites for us (some are pipe dreams) who actually cold be sold to us (some are insanely expensive)
the deffo betters atm
Matthijs de Ligt Ajax (best CB in world potentially down the road in 4, 5, 6 years)
Dayot Upamecano RB Leipzig (20yo potential Umiti clone, a beast, he, Tah, Süle, Milenkovic, Konate, and Dan-Axel Zagadou are the biggest CB's on the list, all are massive, all but Upamecano are well over 1.9m)
Lucas Hernández Atletico Madrid (LB but pays CB as well)
Joe Gomez Victimpool (going to a massive player, unfortunately)
Rúben Dias Benfica
Éder Militão Porto (the new flavour of the month rumour-wise)
Benjamin Pavard Stuttgart (great RB too)
Thilo Kehrer PSG (grrrrrrrrrr, damn Luiz deal we turned down, grrrrr, and he is a great RB too)
Jonathan Tah Bayer Leverkusen
Davinson Sánchez Spuds (hate to put a spuds player, but I would trade them straight up)
Abdou Diallo Borussia Dortmund
then (1,2,3 years older but better atm)
23yo's atm there are seven for sure (José Giménez, Milan Skriniar, Niklas Süle, Alessio Romagnoli, Manuel Akanji, Presnel Kimpembe, and Clément Lenglet
24yo's there are three to five (Laporte, Marquinhos, Stones, maybe Caldara and Rugani too)
25yo's there are four (Varane, Umtiti, Rudiger, Maguire)
finally then the young young potentials
Ampadu
Nikola Milenkovic Fiorentina (potentially)
Dan-Axel Zagadou Borussia Dortmund (1.96m 19yo monster)
Malang Sarr Nice (potentially)
Issa Diop West Ham (potentially, he has looked great the last 7 games or so)
Ibrahima Konaté RB Leipzig (potentially)
finally, 18yo Jean-Clair Todibo Toulouse (potentially, may be a superstar someday, still too early to tell, but he looks a beast)

I wouldnt put majority blame on him, he has only been there 12 months.
He got around £105m for Thomas Lemar and Fabinho, who were going to leave anyway, £15m overall in sales £285m if you count the last part of the Mbappe deal with PSG, which was not done on his watch)
and bought a tonne of super you players for great prices
Monaco's downfall started well before he came in, other than Sidibe, and ageing Falcao and a marginal Jemerson/Glik CB combo (Lopes was too young to play much then) they had almost completely gutted that great 2016-17 CL semifinalist Mbappe-led team. Before Emenalo there, the only players of import (not prospects who are 16,17,18) they bought were Yuri Tielemans (who has been a semi-bust, surprisingly, although I expect him to come good in a big way) and then Keita Balde, who is on loan to Inter (and doing well).
They have an incredible group of thirteen (and more on reserves) 17yo to 21yos. 7 of them still teens, who may be worth £500m plus in 4,5,6 years.
These were Emenalo's first inbound transfers:
I sure hope Jonathan Panzo doesn't come back to bite us in the arse, he sure looked a decent talent at CB.
If they get relegated, I dont think they will lose many of the veterans, maybe Sidibe, maybe Golovin. I dont think they go down though, Amiens, Angers, Caen, Dijon and for sure Guingamp are far less in talent clubs (there are others too).
Stade Reims manager, David Guion, is a miracle worker. he has them in the top half of the table with a squad worth around £46m in total! (on Transfermrkt) They might come crashing down too.

It's a contard thing (if we are going to start rolling around in the pejorative-strewn mud of shallow and vapid insults ie. libtard)
Btw, I am a social democrat with certain left libertarian leanings, and I supported Leave from a leftist perspective. The EU is at heart, a neoliberal construct, run by the banksters, multinational firms, and the oligarchic tip top of the pyramid-inhabiting rentier classes.
It was and is designed to systemically extract wealth from the vast base of said pyramid and courier it in an ever-upward, ever more narrow stream to uber elite. One of it's chief mechanisms in doing this is have an ever more mobile, ever more fluid and anxious floating free pool of labour, shuttled around from hapless and helpless nation-state to nation-state, destroying wage standards, hard-won union worker environs, and straining social services (not to mention social cohesion) wherever it free-flows into.
That all said, Trump is well an truly correctly identified with the mostly xenophobic, if not outright racist (in projection of narrative and more than likely core beliefs as well) repugnant parts of Leave. He plays off a rancid, shop-soiled form of RW populism combined with a lowest common denominator, completely quotidian brand of white nationalism-lite.
What Brexit and Donald Trump have in common
An anti-Trump petition goes viral in Britain, but not in pro-Leave constituencies
https://www.economist.com/bagehots-notebook/2017/01/30/what-brexit-and-donald-trump-have-in-common
Trump, Brexit and the Transatlantic Relationship: The New Paradigms of the Trump Era
https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/10235
“The convictions that leaders have formed before reaching high office are the intellectual capital they will consume as long as they continue in office.”
Henry Kissinger, The White House Years
Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States on 20 January 2017, thus proving wrong a certain number of pundits, observers and scholars who had judged his election most unlikely. His election represents an unprecedented situation: Donald Trump, a multi-millionaire businessman and TV reality celebrity, who had never held public office before became the present incumbent of the White House. After an aggressive, divisive and populist campaign, his victory caused much fear and doubt abroad, raising questions about Trump’s foreign policy choices and the US’s role in global affairs in this new era. This article aims to assess the extent to which the relationship between the US and the EU is impacted by Trump’s presidency. His support for Brexit, his biting attacks against NATO and blistering criticisms of the EU’s trade practices during the election campaign foretold a radical change. Also, Donald Trump’s main pledge of “America First” during the campaign sent a clear message to all America’s partners and signalled a new era in US foreign policy, an era in which the national interest would prevail over other considerations, thus establishing a clear rupture with his predecessor’s more inclusive concept of “common security for our common humanity.”1 In American Foreign Policy, Bruce Jentleson underlines that “following the national interest is the essence of choices to be made in a nation’s foreign policy.”2 All American leaders prior to Trump pursued the national interest and made choices which could best serve the American economy and security. But those choices, as Jentleson points out, were made “within the context of the international system.”3 This is where the Trump era marks a dramatic change in foreign policy strategy: all decisions, partnerships, trade agreements will be subordinated to the supreme interest of his country regardless of traditions, principles or ethics.
Bruce Jentleson distinguishes 4 core concepts that define American national interest: power, peace, prosperity and principles, the famous “4 Ps” of foreign policy.4 Foreign policy is often a mix of the “4 Ps” with some objectives prevailing over others, but power, without a doubt, is the concept that best defines “the essence of choice” in Trump’s foreign policy strategy.5 Power, domination and strength are key words to characterise Trump’s relationship with foreign countries. He imposes his decisions unilaterally, he humiliates his partners and deliberately causes chaos to better assert himself as a most powerful leader. We will see that this is particularly true as regards his attitude towards Brexit and Theresa May, the British Prime Minister. His support for Brexit was nothing but egotistical opportunism and Theresa May suffers today the consequences of Trump’s unpredictable behaviour. Also, behind this domineering attitude lies the desire to restore the image of the United States as the supreme world power, an image that some on the right deemed dented by Obama’s supposedly weak presidency. Prosperity also looms large in Trump’s foreign policy strategy. “America First” means that the economic benefit of his nation will be sought at all costs, even if this entails major rifts with allies or major breaches in the World Trade Organisation’s provisions. On the other hand, principles and peace seem to have very little place in Trump’s foreign policy approach. His repeated attacks against NATO and his unilateral decisions show his deep-seated contempt for international institutions or multilateralism. So far, he has already taken a series of unilateral measures which have had a tremendous impact on the geopolitical order, the most significant being his decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal on 9 May 2017.
In this changing world of new paradigms (protectionism, nationalism and unilateralism), new powers (China and Russia) and new threats (North Korea), what place is left for the transatlantic relationship? Is the transatlantic relationship an outdated paradigm for Donald Trump? What values and ideals will the US and the UE continue to share and defend together? Those are the main questions this paper will raise to get a better insight into Trump’s approach to the European Union and assess the role that Trump will assign to the transatlantic relationship during his term in office.
The Transatlantic Relationship: A Cornerstone in the History of American Foreign Policy
snip